Mr. David Hall:

Yes, perfect. No problem. The programme for Government states that the family home should not be unnecessarily repossessed and alternative solutions should be provided. This refers specifically to the code of conduct on mortgage arrears. That code should, and must, be put on statutory footing. These combined solutions in and of themselves will only tip off the crisis that exists, but the code must be put on a statutory footing. The code of conduct is voluntary, it is not statutory.

In December 2014, Deputy Joan Collins brought before the House a simple piece of legislation. I know the landscape has changed radically and it may be better received now. However, it is absolutely incumbent upon this committee and the House to ensure that vulnerable people who face mortgage arrears and eviction have at least two solutions available to them and that these are compelled to be provided. To be fair, many of the mainstream banks do provide them. It is incumbent, however, that the code of conduct be put on a statutory footing and that mortgage-to-rent and split-mortgage models be the minimum solution offered by every single lender in the State prior to throwing someone out on the street.

If politicians are serious about protecting those facing an uncertain future, they need to draft appropriate legislation for compulsory purchase of properties and lands in order to protect citizens. I know the Master of the High Court was before the committee discussing both vulture funds and the taking over of those properties. There are two State-owned banks. A phone call to both tomorrow morning will give an answer that has yet to be disclosed by the Central Bank. How many customers in mortgage arrears have they got financial information on which they can confirm are going to lose their homes? By our calculations, the figure is approximately 7,500. On top of the cohort mentioned earlier, those lenders also know how many of the restructuring arrangements they have that are vulnerable. Those restructuring arrangements have been pulled out of circulation and removed from an at-risk register. As far as we are concerned, a significant percentage of those are at risk and they need to be dealt with.

Those loans can be taken over. There are two State-owned banks. This will require emergency measures not crazy ones. This is genuine stuff that needs to be taken on board. Those two banks should be here tomorrow morning to set out how many of their loans they have evaluated cannot be repaid. These are people who have co-operated. In respect of the far more serious question of those before the courts, the perception is these people are "messers" who are trying to pull a stroke. This suits the banking narrative. The question that should be asked of those banks that have brought people before the courts is how many have submitted financial information and how many of those people the banks initiated legal proceedings against in the full knowledge that they are goosed. That is a very serious barometer of those before the courts.

The State pays a form of rent allowance to those who cannot afford to pay rent. This is a significant economic burden on the State and the State gets no return for this money. We proposed and circulated a fair mortgage solution. A major cohort of people simply cannot pay. A further cohort can pay something but not enough to satisfy the criteria set by the Central Bank. The Central Bank is the ultimate court of the banks. It sets the sustainability arrangements relating to mortgages so Mary and Joe who could pay €500 on a €1,000 mortgage may not satisfy the Central Bank's requirements for sustainability. If, bizarrely, Mary and Joe get €200 from Uncle Seán, unless they can prove that this is full-time, permanent income, it does not count. If Mary and Joe were to lose their home, the entire country would pay possibly €650 in rent allowance for them. Why not take €200 or €300 of that, top up the €500 and leave them in their home? If the council wants to wake up one morning and become very clever and take ownership of that home, let it do so but let us have some economic benefit in respect of keeping those families in their homes and communities by using the existing structures. I do not say this very often but the banks have actually propped up this system for the past four years. The banks have de factopaid the rent allowance that should be paid by the local authorities because we have a cumbersome, slow and, thankfully, crap system of repossession. This dysfunctional system is the only grace that has saved us. Citizens own two banks and we should bring them in and identify and start with that cohort of people. They are our citizens and our banks and we need to know what the numbers are.

Finally, we have the big monstrosity that is NAMA, which seems to prefer a more elite cohort of debtors. This makes those type of debtors appear a bit better than ordinary citizens in debt. Bizarrely, they have a very good skill set. Legislation should be introduced at this late stage to ensure that NAMA uses the skill sets of its debtors before it favours them to keep family homes, pay it any more and write off their debt. All of these measures should only happen when they supervise a successful project involving the building of houses on NAMA-owned land. Then and only then should those people be released from their debts and allowed to get off scot free. Very few of our clients are stuck in €2 million homes, get paid €10,000 per month and have €100 million debt. There is inequality and a major imbalance and it is time to correct that imbalance before we have one of the largest catastrophes of all time.